I'm sure Sarah Palin will now stop "spreading the wealth" of the oil companies all over the people of Alaska.

Forking hypocrites.

I think that one reason that the Republican mud hasn't stuck to Obama is that he confronts the attacks directly and makes fun of them. Try to imagine any Democrat in the recent past who would have dared make fun of himself as a secret communist because he shared his sandwich in the sixth grade. Obama seems to have enough self-confidence to tell the joke and to make it work, knowing full well that somewhere, some time, some Republican is going to claim that Obama admitted to communist sympathies.

I dunno, I think there's an awful lot of Joe-the-Plumber types out there, who would benefit from Obama's tax plan but don't know that - they're too busy worrying about Obama taking away their purely theoretical wealth and giving it to welfare mothers.

I talk to people like that every day.

Gallup has been asking Americans periodically for over 20 years whether the distribution of money and wealth in this country is "fair," or whether they should be "more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people." (The question wording does not include a reference to exactly how they would be more evenly distributed and does not mention the government.)

And yet you draw the conclusion that this poll implies folks are OK with progressive taxation. Non sequitur.

It takes a long time to build up words and phrases which have commonly understood meanings and appropriate negative connotations.

Indeed. "Sread the wealth" within the discussion of progressive taxation is code for socialism, which sets many folk's spidey sense tingling.

Remember all the faux outrage from McCain about greedy Wall Street Executives and their high pay and parachutes? He seems to have backed off that theme in recent days -- perhaps he got a memo reminding him that these are the very people who got the Bush tax cuts that he wants to extend and make permanent.

You think the charge might have lost its sting after McCain approved $700,000,000,000 of bailouts for the rich? Just maybe a smidgen?

My God! I can't believe the ignorance of some people. This is a Republic with a Capitalistic economy. If we are to preserve the "System" that enables us to go from poor to rich through hard work then you must maintain a strong middle class. Fair distribution of wealth is absolutely necessary to maintain such. Otherwise, we drift toward a "third world" status. Only rich and poor. That's what the voters are realizing and that's why change is coming.

And yet you draw the conclusion that this poll implies folks are OK with progressive taxation. Non sequitur. SJRSM

I haven't heard McCain suggest a flat tax. And the poll doesn't seem to ask about a method of distribution. Seems the only non sequitur is your comment.

Fair distribution of wealth is absolutely necessary to maintain such. Otherwise, we drift toward a "third world" status. Only rich and poor. That's what the voters are realizing and that's why change is coming.
Posted by: fillphil

You're absolutely right that people want a fair distribution. But what they are wary of is a Robin Hood method of redistributing. What they want are fair wages, the ability to make the money themselves if they earn it, not have it given to them. So when you argue about progressive taxation and sharing the wealth in the same sentence, you're setting off the those alarm bells. Decouple the two.

I really love the image of an angry, bitter, old rich guy who married into wealth and owns 13 cars and more mansions than he can count, who is promising $300 BILLION in tax cuts for his ultra-rich corporate cronies and tax increases for everyone else, whining about how terrible it is that Obama wants to return to Clinton-era tax brackets (an era, by the way, when the after-tax income of the rich rose more, and faster, than anyone else's) to "spread the wealth" around to working class folks who are struggling to pay their bills and losing their jobs and homes every day.

It's like McCain is deliberately trying to make himself into a one-dimensional cartoon comic book stereotype of a Scrooge-like, greedy, mean-spirited old miser.

yeah, and what is with that damned socialist Ronald Reagan starting the Earned Income Tax Credit anyway??

" ... the campaign also seems to believe that simply whining about "spreading the wealth" is supposed to be some kind of electoral cudgel, when in fact, most Americans aren't offended by the idea at all."

Sort of like when the campaign told us that Obama is a "celebrity." I guess they forgot just how much Americans love their celebrities! Simply, incredibly, yet predictably, stupid.

SJRSM wrote: "You're absolutely right that people want a fair distribution. But what they are wary of is a Robin Hood method of redistributing. What they want are fair wages, the ability to make the money themselves if they earn it, not have it given to them."

Of course you provide ZERO evidence for your claims about what "people want" or what "they want" ... claims which of course represent not an empirical assessment of what actual people actually want, but are rather a rote regurgitation of talking points from the scripted litany of the fake, phony, trumped-up, corporate-sponsored pseudo-ideology of "tax cut libertarianism."

What opinion polls actually tell is us that "people" are "wary" of is impoverishment, unemployment and homelessness, of an inability to pay their bills and mortgages, an inability to pay for necessary medical care or provide an education for their children ... not slightly higher tax rates on the ultra-rich.

List of idotic inside lines that only McCain/Palin Republicans understand.

"Tire gauges, snicker, har har har!"
"Joe the Plumber, yeahhh!"
"Redistributor in Chief, hick, chuckle, guffaw!"
"He's a celebrity, nyah nyah."
"I've been tested my friends, so there."
"He's gonna raise your taxes, booga booga!"
"I'm not phoning it it."

It's like these guys take pride in being ingnorant.

You're absolutely right that people want a fair distribution. But what they are wary of is a Robin Hood method of redistributing.

Wrong.

That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what people want.

What they don't want is redistributing money FROM THEM to others. The "rich" are someone else; it's perfectly fine to redistribute from THEM.

I've actually been frustrated with the Obama campaign's weak rebuttal thus far to McCain's many and various smears of Obama's tax plan as "socialist." McCain has been beating Obama over the head with this smear, personified by Joe the Plumber, for weeks now, and the sum-total response I've seen is an unsatisfying "they're just desperate" dismissal and a lame joke about Obama sharing snacks in kindergarten. That's just not good enough, given the (small but) undeniable tightening in the polls, which suggests that the socialism smear may be having some effect.

What the Obama camp should be offering instead is a full-throated defense of the progressive income tax that goes something like this:

"When George Bush pass his tax cut plan back in 2001, the super rich and big corporations saw most of the benefit of those tax cuts - the richest 1% got 31% of the benefit - while the tax burden on hard-working middle class families went up. And we're witnessing the disastrous aftermath of that decision; working families are struggling more than ever while Wall Street went on a binge of greed and speculation. Now John McCain wants to continue this policy.

My tax plan aims to restore the balance in our nation's tax burden that existed before George Bush and give much-needed tax relief to what will be the engine of our economic recovery: the great American middle class. And John McCain calls this "socialism." Well, John McCain said he didn't know much about economics, and now he's just proved it. Anybody who thinks a progressive income tax structure is socialist doesn't know what they are talking about.

The progressive income tax has a long and proud history in America. It has endured for 100 years, because it reflects 2 basic economic realities. First, living costs for American families - just the basics of daily survival, like housing, food, clothes, health care, transportation - impose a disproportionately heavy burden on working and middle class families for whom such basic necessities take most of every paycheck. Second, the fact is that the wealthiest in our society benefit most from America's economic system. And so, from president Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, we have required the wealthy to contribute more than the poor to the maintenance and defense of that system.

So progressive taxation is part of the proud capitalist tradition in America. It has served us well through great times of economic prosperity, like the post-WWII boom and the 1990s. But in 2001 George Bush has decided to revive trickle-down economics, and gave massive tax cuts to the super rich and big corporations, increasing the overall tax burden on the middle class. And now our economy is struggling. My tax plan would cut taxes for the middle class, help hard working families pay their bills and buy needed goods, and get our economy back on its feet."

"Spread, baby, spread!"

Obama: spreading the wealth

McCain: spreading the manure

Steve, I'm so glad you did your little guest stint on Salon awhile back, else I might never have known about you. Now I'm here several times a day catching up on the most relevant news.

And Salon . . . well . . it's so 1990s. I was one of their biggest fans and one of the original subscribers, but Salon has become so irrelevant, I'm going to let my subscription die. All I read there now is the weekly Garrison Keillor post. I can put up with their advertisements for that.

Thanks for your excellent reporting and your amazing commitment!

If the top 1-5% want to pay less of the tax load, the answer is pretty simple:

Pay your employees more. The more the middle class makes, the more load they are picking up.

SJRSM: Does the word "fair' apply to the present state of our progressive tax situation? We've had 8 yrs of proving it isn't. Time for an adjustment and if you are rich don't tell me you won't be able to afford it. I know Cindy McCain will be able to afford it. She would, of course, prefer the $343,000 tax break her hubby promises. Change is coming!!!!

I am convinced that the wave of Pronoun's-the-Occupations in the McCain campaign is the result of Americans simply wanting to be apart of the 'insiders' group that the republican party is all about.

Tito the Builder is a prime example. Telegenic? No, but he is rabidly trying to grab the spot light, hoping for a record and book deal of his own to catapult him into stardom. It is sad. Is Tito in construction? Or is it just a character?

In the democratic party, these people would just be part of middle class America that has been screwed over by republican governing. With the republicans, sky is the limit (read: Nov. 5th).

SJRSM: Does the word "fair' apply to the present state of our progressive tax situation? We've had 8 yrs of proving it isn't. Time for an adjustment and if you are rich don't tell me you won't be able to afford it. I know Cindy McCain will be able to afford it. She would, of course, prefer the $343,000 tax break her hubby promises. Change is coming!!!!
Posted by: fillphil

Again, when you couch progressive taxation as a means to share the wealth, when you discuss them in the same breath, you're sending out code signals. Signals that you obviously aren't attuned to hear, but others are.

Cheney's Third Nipple gets it.

Stop Spreading your wealth to the IRS. They have all the money they need. What is the opposite or "spreading"? Hoarding? This whole thing makes absolutely no rational sense. How does capitalism work? Isn't it about exchanging value for value? I use dollars with a certain value in exchange for goods and/or services with a certain value. It is an agreement between the parties to the transaction. If I don't have any wealth to exchange for your goods and services, there is no basis for the exchange. I won't take any more space to explain monetary theory and social contracts. You either get it or you don't. It is about human compassion and supporting each other to be the best we can be.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Be very careful how you interpret this poll result. When taken by itself, it would appear that Americans would favor government intervention to pursue wealth distribution. The trend lines for this question have been pretty steady over 20 years. However, Americans are still extremely leery of government intervention. This shows in the historically steady results of wealth redistribution by heavy taxation of the rich.

Another interesting tidbit in this polling data is that although a plurality of respondents are considered strong redistributionists, nearly half oppose redistribution or support it through non-government programs.

I have to agree with SJRSM on this, don't assume this means Americans prefer progressive taxation. It doesn't jibe with the individualist streak still running strong throughout the country.

Cheney's Third Nipple gets it.

There's a sentence I never thought I'd see in print.

They are campaigning like it's 1966, with added nastiness allowed. Back then, right wing code phrases were a lot more embedded than they are now. Back then, a hint of collectivism was a lot better known as belonging to "the enemy". Part of their campaigning problem is that we are no longer in the cold war era. Had Bush not diluted "terrorism" by crying wolf so often, that tactic might be more workable. Unfortunately, millions fly, and we know that the TSA is largely for annoyance and show. This dilutes the scare message drastically.

The "welfare" comment is more classist than racist, I think, aiming at middle class shame.

What they don't want is redistributing money FROM THEM to others. The "rich" are someone else; it's perfectly fine to redistribute from THEM.

And if you've noticed, when the phrase gets re-used, it rapidly becomes something like "he wants to spread YOUR wealth around," as opposed to "spread THE wealth around."

I don't know why it's possible for so many people to feel like they have "wealth" they stand to lose to deadbeats and slackers, but, apparently, some of them do.

SJRSM: I guess the use of the word "fair" doesn't do it for you. Perhaps "fairer" or some other taxation method wouldn't send out those
"code signals". The "system" has been adopted and worked well until Reagan and Geo2 came along. Got any ideas on how to make it "fairer" or shall we just tred lightly about this subject and not send out any code signals?
p.s. I never "couched progressive taxes as a means to share the wealth". I implied the importance of protecting the middle class by being fair to them.

Excellent post Cheney's 3rd Nip (1:34pm). I too wonder why this hasn't been debunked head-on. Hell, Obama had 30 minutes on primetime the other night to say exactly this.

There is a time for Progressive Taxation as well as Regressive Taxation; both have their pros and cons - both tend to stimulate the economy in different ways. Both types are needed at different times for maximum innovation and efficiency. Bush chose a regressive tax model at the wrong time for the sake of wealth. Conservative politicians need to realize that the economy is a living breathing organism that needs constant care - and you can't tend to one side of the garden and not the other. Government's role should be to till the soil, not over water its favorite vegetable. I think Obama has the right approach at the right time. McCain does not.

Thanks Mick! You just expanded beautifully on my use of the word "fair".

PEOPLE LIKE SPREADING THE WEALTH....

They sure as hell do in Alaska.

Of course, Alaska has a left-wing, Socialistic, Commie-simp, godless Democratic governor. Oh, wait.

The problem is that McCain/Palin has been somewhat successful with their lies, that they have convinced many people who would actually receive more of the "wealth" that Obama wants to take it away from them and give it all to welfare kings and queens.

Do we have evidence to believe that the "spread the wealth" gambit has changed anyone's voting preference from Obama to McCain, or from Obama to undecided, or from undecided to McCain?

It certainly has given rock-solid McCain supporters another rallying cry, but so did "Drill, Baby, Drill." People didn't decide they were basing their votes on energy policy, then hear "DBD," then decide to back McCain. "DBD" was more like "Yankees Suck" or "J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets!"

I think "spread the wealth" is similar.